Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Cameos, Sculpture, Brimstone
What if my ship is under the GPL, and it crosses the International Dateline? innocent_white_lamb writes "A participant on the Scribus mailing list has posted a reply that he received from the FSF regarding the recent GPL font-licensing discussion, i.e. when does your document become subject to the GPL if you use GPL licensed fonts."
In short, it's less of a worry than some people made it out to be in the earlier Slashdot discussion, but it's not a merely imaginary issue.
They should offer MP3 players shaped like tiny fish. ProsperoDGC writes "The BBC is offering more shows as podcasts. While only non-music programs will be available (due to potential copyright problems with music-based shows), the variety of content is representative of BBC radio's output, including news, interviews, documentaries, and sport."
Every year, the artist has to double the bottom-most layer. Qbertino writes "The online version of the German news-magazine Der Spiegel has a short photo-bulletin on a sculpture in the Heinz-Nixdorf-Museumsforum of Paderborn. The sculpture represents Moores Law, formulated 40 years ago by Intel co-founder Gorden Moore. It states that the amount of transistors on a chip doubles every 24 months while at the same time the size of the chip halves. The law still applies to this very day. Bulletin and thumbnail here (text in German) and a larger picture here. An impressive visualization."
Look very carefully for that fellow from 'The Office.' jangobongo writes "In an interview with SciFi Wire, Garth Jennings, director of 'Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy', reveals some hidden in-jokes and homages in the movie. Among them: Simon Jones, who played Arthur Dent in the original TV series, can be seen and heard briefly as a Magrathean announcer - in 3D (get out your red & green 3D glasses!); the original Marvin robot can be seen in a queue of volunteers lining up to save Trillian; and in several places, head shots of Douglas Adams can be seen. Look for one, as the characters are flying through the planet factory, where Douglas' whole head is a giant planet. "It's quite lovely," says Jennings."
Popping trial balloons as they slink up the flagpole. bonch writes "Sony is now backpedaling on a recent CEO's slip of the tongue about a recently reported iTunes-like movie-download service. Steve Banfield, vice president of Sony Connect, says Sony is digitizing its movies and will allow some video clips to be used royalty-free for video 'mash' projects, but that Sony is not planning to to create an 'iTunes for Hollywood.'"
Dino alive, kicking, and annoying. Last May, we posted a story about the dino-shaped cam surviving under harsh conditions on New Zealand's volcanic White Island.
fraygos writes "Counting on the sulphur and high acid environment to deal to the creature has yielded little as Dino refuses to die. It's been almost a year and our darling dinosaur shows little erosion."
In short, it's less of a worry than some people made it out to be in the earlier Slashdot discussion
Don't you mean:
In short, it's less of a worry than the Slashdot writeup, that I personally approved, made it out to be.
What if Microsoft uses a GPL'd font? Is Microsoft now under the GPL?
No.
What if a document of international law uses a GPL'd font, then is all of the world under the GPL?
No.
You can't "accidentally" put yourself under the GPL. It's not like "whoops, I accidentally released this under a license I didn't intend to!" If some international organization releases a document using a GPL font, and they retain copyright ("this document cannot be reproduced, etc., blah blah blah") the document isn't under the GPL. It's under the license they put it under.
Now, assume that the document is, in fact, a program (like, PostScript) and contains "font programs" (like, TrueType, or whatever). Then the document may be a derivative work. But guess what? It still doesn't fall under the GPL. It is just no longer distributable at all (under the license that they want, or no license whatsoever).
I know you were probably being facetious, but poor wording from the FSF and from a lot of GPL advocates has really confused the issue. The question isn't whether or not the document is under the GPL or not. That's the author's decision. It's always the author's decision. The question is whether or not it's releasable under a non-GPL license.
Just imagine how long that pink piece of plastic would last in a friggin landfill.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.